VT26 Chemical Biology
Respondents: 66
Answer Count: 38
Answer Frequency: 57.58%
VT26 Chemical Biology
Respondents: 66
Answer Count: 38
Answer Frequency: 57.58%
The course was designed in a way that provided me with opportunities for active learning. For example: seminars with discussions, group work, projects, student presentations, role play, peer learning, practical exercises, laboratory work, workplace-based learning, etc.
| The course was designed in a way that provided me with opportunities for active learning. For example: seminars with discussions, group work, projects, student presentations, role play, peer learning, practical exercises, laboratory work, workplace-based learning, etc. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 | 2 (5.3%) |
| 3 | 3 (7.9%) |
| 4 | 6 (15.8%) |
| 5 | 18 (47.4%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 8 (21.1%) |
| Don't know | 1 (2.6%) |
| Total | 38 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The course was designed in a way that provided me with opportunities for active learning. For example: seminars with discussions, group work, projects, student presentations, role play, peer learning, practical exercises, laboratory work, workplace-based learning, etc. | 4.7 | 1.1 | 22.6 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
I felt included and respected during the course. For example: I was comfortable collaborating with other students, speaking in front of the group, answering teachers' questions, and I was listened to (not interrupted, ridiculed, or similar).
| I felt included and respected during the course. For example: I was comfortable collaborating with other students, speaking in front of the group, answering teachers' questions, and I was listened to (not interrupted, ridiculed, or similar). | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 | 1 (2.6%) |
| 3 | 2 (5.3%) |
| 4 | 3 (7.9%) |
| 5 | 12 (31.6%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 19 (50.0%) |
| Don't know | 1 (2.6%) |
| Total | 38 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I felt included and respected during the course. For example: I was comfortable collaborating with other students, speaking in front of the group, answering teachers' questions, and I was listened to (not interrupted, ridiculed, or similar). | 5.2 | 1.0 | 19.3 % | 2.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
The course as a whole was good.
| The course as a whole was good. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 | 3 (7.9%) |
| 3 | 4 (10.5%) |
| 4 | 10 (26.3%) |
| 5 | 13 (34.2%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 7 (18.4%) |
| Don't know | 1 (2.6%) |
| Total | 38 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The course as a whole was good. | 4.5 | 1.2 | 26.2 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
The course structure and methods used (e.g. lectures, exercises, seminars, assignments etc.) were relevant in relation to the learning outcomes.
| The course structure and methods used (e.g. lectures, exercises, seminars, assignments etc.) were relevant in relation to the learning outcomes. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 | 1 (2.6%) |
| 3 | 3 (7.9%) |
| 4 | 8 (21.1%) |
| 5 | 17 (44.7%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 8 (21.1%) |
| Don't know | 1 (2.6%) |
| Total | 38 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The course structure and methods used (e.g. lectures, exercises, seminars, assignments etc.) were relevant in relation to the learning outcomes. | 4.8 | 1.0 | 20.7 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
The course built upon my knowledge from previous courses in the programme.
| The course built upon my knowledge from previous courses in the programme. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 | 1 (2.6%) |
| 3 | 1 (2.6%) |
| 4 | 5 (13.2%) |
| 5 | 10 (26.3%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 20 (52.6%) |
| Don't know | 1 (2.6%) |
| Total | 38 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The course built upon my knowledge from previous courses in the programme. | 5.3 | 1.0 | 18.8 % | 2.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
The examination was relevant in relation to the learning outcomes.
| The examination was relevant in relation to the learning outcomes. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| 3 | 3 (8.3%) |
| 4 | 2 (5.6%) |
| 5 | 17 (47.2%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 13 (36.1%) |
| Don't know | 1 (2.8%) |
| Total | 36 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The examination was relevant in relation to the learning outcomes. | 5.1 | 0.9 | 17.1 % | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
When/if I had questions or problems with the course content, I felt that I could turn to my teacher/supervisor for guidance.
| When/if I had questions or problems with the course content, I felt that I could turn to my teacher/supervisor for guidance. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| 3 | 3 (8.1%) |
| 4 | 4 (10.8%) |
| 5 | 9 (24.3%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 18 (48.6%) |
| Don't know | 3 (8.1%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| When/if I had questions or problems with the course content, I felt that I could turn to my teacher/supervisor for guidance. | 5.2 | 1.0 | 18.8 % | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
The feedback I received from teachers and peers throughout the course supported my learning.
| The feedback I received from teachers and peers throughout the course supported my learning. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 | 3 (7.9%) |
| 3 | 1 (2.6%) |
| 4 | 9 (23.7%) |
| 5 | 14 (36.8%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 9 (23.7%) |
| Don't know | 2 (5.3%) |
| Total | 38 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The feedback I received from teachers and peers throughout the course supported my learning. | 4.7 | 1.1 | 24.3 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 6.0 |
How do you perceive the workload in this course in relation to the number of credits awarded?
| How do you perceive the workload in this course in relation to the number of credits awarded? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Far too low | 0 (0.0%) |
| Too low | 0 (0.0%) |
| Appropriate | 19 (51.4%) |
| Too high | 16 (43.2%) |
| Far too high | 2 (5.4%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How do you perceive the workload in this course in relation to the number of credits awarded? | 3.5 | 0.6 | 17.1 % | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Rate the following aspects of the course (the more stars, the better)
Number of lectures
| Number of lectures | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| 3 (8.1%) | |
| 8 (21.6%) | |
| 13 (35.1%) | |
| good | 13 (35.1%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of lectures | 4.0 | 1.0 | 24.1 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Length of lectures
| Length of lectures | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 1 (2.7%) |
| 4 (10.8%) | |
| 9 (24.3%) | |
| 14 (37.8%) | |
| good | 9 (24.3%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length of lectures | 3.7 | 1.1 | 28.4 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Number of seminars
| Number of seminars | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| 3 (8.1%) | |
| 10 (27.0%) | |
| 13 (35.1%) | |
| good | 11 (29.7%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of seminars | 3.9 | 0.9 | 24.5 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Amount of practical work
| Amount of practical work | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| 5 (13.5%) | |
| 11 (29.7%) | |
| 10 (27.0%) | |
| good | 11 (29.7%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of practical work | 3.7 | 1.0 | 28.0 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Number of project work meetings
| Number of project work meetings | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 2 (5.4%) |
| 8 (21.6%) | |
| 6 (16.2%) | |
| 13 (35.1%) | |
| good | 8 (21.6%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of project work meetings | 3.5 | 1.2 | 35.1 % | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Project work group
| Project work group | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| 5 (13.9%) | |
| 5 (13.9%) | |
| 11 (30.6%) | |
| good | 15 (41.7%) |
| Total | 36 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project work group | 4.0 | 1.1 | 26.7 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Rate the following teaching modules.
Lectures
| Lectures | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 7 (19.4%) |
| OK | 9 (25.0%) |
| good | 12 (33.3%) |
| very good | 8 (22.2%) |
| Total | 36 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lectures | 3.6 | 1.1 | 29.4 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Seminars
| Seminars | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 4 (11.1%) |
| OK | 10 (27.8%) |
| good | 16 (44.4%) |
| very good | 6 (16.7%) |
| Total | 36 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seminars | 3.7 | 0.9 | 24.4 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Computer lab
| Computer lab | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 2 (5.6%) |
| poor | 4 (11.1%) |
| OK | 12 (33.3%) |
| good | 13 (36.1%) |
| very good | 5 (13.9%) |
| Total | 36 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Computer lab | 3.4 | 1.1 | 30.8 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Inhibitor (wet) lab
| Inhibitor (wet) lab | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (2.9%) |
| poor | 4 (11.4%) |
| OK | 7 (20.0%) |
| good | 13 (37.1%) |
| very good | 10 (28.6%) |
| Total | 35 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibitor (wet) lab | 3.8 | 1.1 | 28.8 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Project work
| Project work | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (2.8%) |
| poor | 1 (2.8%) |
| OK | 12 (33.3%) |
| good | 14 (38.9%) |
| very good | 8 (22.2%) |
| Total | 36 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project work | 3.8 | 0.9 | 25.0 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Lab manuals
| Lab manuals | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 7 (19.4%) |
| good | 19 (52.8%) |
| very good | 10 (27.8%) |
| Total | 36 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lab manuals | 4.1 | 0.7 | 16.9 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
For the entire course rate the attitude of the people (staff) you have been in contact with the MBB on the course.
Course director (Bernhard Lohkamp)
| Course director (Bernhard Lohkamp) | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 2 (5.4%) |
| good | 8 (21.6%) |
| very good | 27 (73.0%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course director (Bernhard Lohkamp) | 4.7 | 0.6 | 12.4 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Lecturers
| Lecturers | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 3 (8.1%) |
| OK | 11 (29.7%) |
| good | 17 (45.9%) |
| very good | 6 (16.2%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecturers | 3.7 | 0.8 | 22.8 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Seminar/Workshop teachers
| Seminar/Workshop teachers | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 3 (8.1%) |
| OK | 9 (24.3%) |
| good | 16 (43.2%) |
| very good | 9 (24.3%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seminar/Workshop teachers | 3.8 | 0.9 | 23.4 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Lab teachers
| Lab teachers | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (2.7%) |
| poor | 3 (8.1%) |
| OK | 4 (10.8%) |
| good | 19 (51.4%) |
| very good | 10 (27.0%) |
| Total | 37 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lab teachers | 3.9 | 1.0 | 25.1 % | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury)
| Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury) | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (2.9%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 7 (20.6%) |
| good | 13 (38.2%) |
| very good | 13 (38.2%) |
| Total | 34 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury) | 4.1 | 0.9 | 22.8 % | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Course lab (Margareta Kling Pilström and Joseph Bruton )
| Course lab (Margareta Kling Pilström and Joseph Bruton ) | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 6 (18.2%) |
| good | 12 (36.4%) |
| very good | 15 (45.5%) |
| Total | 33 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course lab (Margareta Kling Pilström and Joseph Bruton ) | 4.3 | 0.8 | 17.8 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Did you experience unnecessary repetition or overlap during the course (within the course or compared with previous courses)?
| Did you experience unnecessary repetition or overlap during the course (within the course or compared with previous courses)? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Yes - within the course | 3 (8.1%) |
| Yes - compared with previous courses | 7 (18.9%) |
| No | 25 (67.6%) |
| Don't know | 5 (13.5%) |
| Total | 40 (108.1%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Did you experience unnecessary repetition or overlap during the course (within the course or compared with previous courses)? | 2.6 | 0.6 | 24.6 % | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
The Labster simulation about NMR contributed to your learning and understanding of theory?
| The Labster simulation about NMR contributed to your learning and understanding of theory? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| 1 Totally disagree | 1 (2.6%) |
| 2 | 1 (2.6%) |
| 3 | 5 (13.2%) |
| 4 | 3 (7.9%) |
| 5 | 1 (2.6%) |
| 6 Totally agree | 3 (7.9%) |
| I did not complete the simulation | 24 (63.2%) |
| Total | 38 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Labster simulation about NMR contributed to your learning and understanding of theory? | 5.8 | 1.8 | 31.2 % | 1.0 | 4.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 |